Don't assume that because I'm going to play Devil's Advocate regarding library censorship that I can be lumped into the Bible-thumping homophobic Luddie crowd, ok Webster?
Misuse? wtf are you talking about? Since when is looking up Gay rights issues, or information about abortion misuse.
Oh please I said nothing about Gay rights issues, and my in my earlier citation of abortion I neither stated that it was good nor bad.
Somebody mark this joker's post as a troll, because given his inability to refrain from foul language nor stick to the facts...he has it written all over his angry hairless face.
...roughly 10 years of experience working for and with the U.S. Government -- as both a member of the military and a Government contractor.
Basically, your argument is based on this naive belief that our government "wouldn't do anything wrong cuz we're the GOOD GUYS" when if you'd open your eyes, you'd see that the history of our government is no different than any other's. It's littered with deceipt and dead bodies.
It's funny how concepts one refuses to believe in become "naive".
My argument has nothing to do with thinking that "we're the GOOD GUYS"; it has everything to do with the fact that people in general don't want to put up with the hassle of keeping things secret, breaking the law or having to constantly cover their asses.
This is precisely the type of knee-jerk "THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE!" reaction I was afraid of getting when I posted my first message. The fact that the response was moderated up leads me to believe that quite a few people out there somehow think that the U.S. has alien bodies from a crash at Roswell, too.
I could give you a list of references indicting out government, but I suggest you start with the two I already mentioned.
But I'm sure you'll just dismiss them as the works of angry, former US gov't employees who have an axe to grind because they didn't get their pension or something. No, you're right...it's far more convenient and fascinating to blame it all on a Shadow Government (hell, let's just call it Big Brother) which, in addition to having to deal with threats from other countries, has enough resources to conduct massive campaigns to keep its population in check.
Please, PLEASE cite me some of these references. After I'm through going through the tons of books, magazine articles and handbills written by credible authors who have done thorough research using established procedures about the Loch Ness Monster, Area 51, and Bigfoot...I'll be sure to read about the CIA's campaign against America.
Also, please be sure to mark which publications talk about the CIA spreading crack through urban neighborhoods. That should be especially good reading.
The simplest solution is often the correct one. Stop believing in the Boogyman and direct some of that critical brainpower towards the "exclusive reports".
I am well aware that filters such as SurfWatch are faulty (though you presented the facts well, IMO). My point is that if a community wishes to ignore the facts and stick their heads into the sand or throw thousands of dollars at a faulty product, let them.
It's not an issue of your tax dolars funding someone's porn habbit. It's an issue of wether or not you want to spend money to stop people from looking at pages that have been deemed 'unworthy' by surfwatch corporation. It costs less To let him see it. please stop using the tax dolars argument, it makes you look stupid.
I'm going to refrain from making a comment on what really makes a poster look stupid, and instead respond to your post:
Any way you slice it, it's an issue of how my tax dollars are being spent. Bandwidth costs money. Computer time costs money. If somebody is hogging the few library computers available, or wasting the bandwidth downloading MPEGs, then it costs me (the taxpayer) money. Discouraging misuse of publicly-funded computers means saving money; otherwise more money will be thrown at the problem to either A) buy more computers, B) pay more for increased bandwidth or C) both.
So, what you are saying is that it's ok for the 'community' to decide what the poor (people who can't afford there own computers) Can and cannot learn about? And anyway, the community dosn't deside, surfwatch does, for all communitys.
Damn right that's what I'm saying. If you have a community full of uncompassionate penny-pinchers who don't want to provide public access to the Internet....well hey: it's their local tax dollars. With that decision they'll have to deal with the stigma of being [insert negative term here], which in turn could have an impact on tourism, etc. etc. In the end, they'll lie in the bed they make.
One more thing, just as we have no hard figures on how many people (if any) use public computers to surf for porn, we have no hard figures as to how many people use public computers who have no systems of their own at home. I suspect that if I lived at or below the poverty line in the U.S. (which still means you own a stereo, VCR and TV I think), not being able to surf the Net at my leisure wouldn't be a major concern...especially when most of the things you do on the Net may still be accomplished in the Real World.
Sorry, but "majority rules" is no excuse for taking away people's rights.
Well, pardon me for asking but when exactly is the majority permitted to "rule"?
I'm against censorship, but I'm also of the mind that my tax dollars shouldn't allow Joe Public to view "hot naked coeds" at the local library. Exactly what is "wrong material" should be, IMO, left up to the local community: so if the residents of Liberal, Kansas think that abortion-related pages are bad and should be filtered out, so be it. If the community then suffers due to ignorance, that's their problem.
When does the majority get the right to steer the course of their environment? There are a lot of voices here on/. that talk about the idiots in the media (a small but vocal minority) who steer the course of many tech-related issues...where are those voices in this case?
The X-Files conspiracy crowd will refuse to belive this, but there's a few simple reasons why such theories as the CIA planting bombs on planes and U.S. Government-sponsored DoS attacks are total bunk.
Government employees generally don't rank high on the trust or confidence scales. Sometimes, a few of the high-ranking ones get caught doing something illegal. But the vast majority of government employees, IMO, have two major concerns in their day-to-day work experience:
"When do I get off of work?" and
"How can I cover my own ass?"
Killing their own citizens or costing their country's corporations millions of dollars are not on the agenda. Sure, they may consider doing that to other countries, but nobody shits where they eat. That's Reason #1. You don't bomb airliners, because your best friend's favorite aunt may be onboard. You don't DoS E-Bay because your partner's spouse is bidding on that one item he/she really wants.
I'm not even factoring in that much-rediculed characteristic, patriotism, which would keep a lot of folks from taking part in such plans.
Reason #2: It's damned hard to keep a secret. I cite the U.S. F-117, aka the "stealth fighter". America was developing an 'invisible plane', and everybody knew it. Even some model companies came out with "concept" versions of the fighter before the USAF ever went public...and those models had remarkable similarities to the real deal. How so? Contractors and military members saying a few things too much, is my guess. It's hard to totally keep a secret if it's a big one; killing your fellow citizens or damaging large corporations is such a secret.
The DoS attacks are the work of a small group of vandals, not the "Shadow Government". Turn off the TV and turn on your brain. Think.
...and at least 500 million of those pages are at microsoft.com. I know, from personal experience (just the other day it took me 20 minutes to find PWS for Win95). Ever tried to find something buried in there?
I suspect that a "true" conservative or liberal can't be elected to a high office these days. Instead, the public is served by individuals who have allowed their personal beliefs to be comprimised at some point so as to be more attractive to the voters, campaign donors, or both.
Regarding censorship: please remember that (at least in the U.S.) every major party has supported censorship of one kind or another. This isn't a "Republican vs. Democrat" or "Conservative vs. Liberal" thing. Yes, Virginia...Pat Robertson and Tipper Gore are in the same boat -- albeit different ends.
Release Episode 1 on VHS only in 2000. Pull a "Disney" move and sell a limited number, citing that "this classic will only be on sale for a limited time". This will allow the price to be driven up a few dollars more. Hey, it works for cartoons...
Wait until Episode 2 is ready to hit the theaters. Release the Ep1 DVD, cashing in on the renewed Star Wars frenzy. Again, make this a "limited offer".
Nine months after Ep2 comes out, release the "limited" VHS version.
Right before Ep3 is released, release the Ep2 DVD "limited" version.
Nine months after Ep3 comes out, release the "Star Wars Collection": all six Star Wars movies on VHS. Do not sell Episode 3 by itself.
Six months later, release the Ep3 DVD.
Two years later, release a "Director's Cut" of each of the first three Star Wars movies on both DVD and VHS.
Two years after that, release the "digitally remastered" versions of Episode 1.
One year later, announce that Lucasfilm will do Episodes 7 through 9.
Lather, rinse, repeat. Of course, if I were George Lucas I'd also have a full beard and scare the Hell out of my wife when she woke up in the morning...but that's neither here nor there.
Oh, don't worry Colonel...they still play videos on MTV. The trouble is, they're busy running crawlers at the bottom and overdubbing some vapid ragamuffin's music request so you can neither hear the music nor pay attention to the video. Ah, I long for the days where the constant stream of videos were only interrupted by a single SnickersTM ad. At least VH1 is starting to show Metallica...
Slashdot Mirror
Shhh! Keep it down! This is gonna be on the next "Windows NT vs. Linux" information sheet Redmond provides to the retailers....
Online gaming for motivated, sportsmanlike players: www.steelmaelstrom.org.
Online gaming for motivated, sportsmanlike players: www.steelmaelstrom.org.
Online gaming for motivated, sportsmanlike players: www.steelmaelstrom.org.
Online gaming for motivated, sportsmanlike players: www.steelmaelstrom.org.
Online gaming for motivated, sportsmanlike players: www.steelmaelstrom.org.
And there's your problem.
Don't assume that because I'm going to play Devil's Advocate regarding library censorship that I can be lumped into the Bible-thumping homophobic Luddie crowd, ok Webster?
Online gaming for motivated, sportsmanlike players: www.steelmaelstrom.org.
Oh please I said nothing about Gay rights issues, and my in my earlier citation of abortion I neither stated that it was good nor bad.
Somebody mark this joker's post as a troll, because given his inability to refrain from foul language nor stick to the facts...he has it written all over his angry hairless face.
Online gaming for motivated, sportsmanlike players: www.steelmaelstrom.org.
Basically, your argument is based on this naive belief that our government "wouldn't do anything wrong cuz we're the GOOD GUYS" when if you'd open your eyes, you'd see that the history of our government is no different than any other's. It's littered with deceipt and dead bodies.
It's funny how concepts one refuses to believe in become "naive".
My argument has nothing to do with thinking that "we're the GOOD GUYS"; it has everything to do with the fact that people in general don't want to put up with the hassle of keeping things secret, breaking the law or having to constantly cover their asses.
This is precisely the type of knee-jerk "THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE!" reaction I was afraid of getting when I posted my first message. The fact that the response was moderated up leads me to believe that quite a few people out there somehow think that the U.S. has alien bodies from a crash at Roswell, too.
I could give you a list of references indicting out government, but I suggest you start with the two I already mentioned.
But I'm sure you'll just dismiss them as the works of angry, former US gov't employees who have an axe to grind because they didn't get their pension or something. No, you're right...it's far more convenient and fascinating to blame it all on a Shadow Government (hell, let's just call it Big Brother) which, in addition to having to deal with threats from other countries, has enough resources to conduct massive campaigns to keep its population in check.
Please, PLEASE cite me some of these references. After I'm through going through the tons of books, magazine articles and handbills written by credible authors who have done thorough research using established procedures about the Loch Ness Monster, Area 51, and Bigfoot...I'll be sure to read about the CIA's campaign against America.
Also, please be sure to mark which publications talk about the CIA spreading crack through urban neighborhoods. That should be especially good reading.
The simplest solution is often the correct one. Stop believing in the Boogyman and direct some of that critical brainpower towards the "exclusive reports".
Online gaming for motivated, sportsmanlike players: www.steelmaelstrom.org.
Online gaming for motivated, sportsmanlike players: www.steelmaelstrom.org.
I'm going to refrain from making a comment on what really makes a poster look stupid, and instead respond to your post:
Any way you slice it, it's an issue of how my tax dollars are being spent. Bandwidth costs money. Computer time costs money. If somebody is hogging the few library computers available, or wasting the bandwidth downloading MPEGs, then it costs me (the taxpayer) money. Discouraging misuse of publicly-funded computers means saving money; otherwise more money will be thrown at the problem to either A) buy more computers, B) pay more for increased bandwidth or C) both.
So, what you are saying is that it's ok for the 'community' to decide what the poor (people who can't afford there own computers) Can and cannot learn about? And anyway, the community dosn't deside, surfwatch does, for all communitys.
Damn right that's what I'm saying. If you have a community full of uncompassionate penny-pinchers who don't want to provide public access to the Internet....well hey: it's their local tax dollars. With that decision they'll have to deal with the stigma of being [insert negative term here], which in turn could have an impact on tourism, etc. etc. In the end, they'll lie in the bed they make.
One more thing, just as we have no hard figures on how many people (if any) use public computers to surf for porn, we have no hard figures as to how many people use public computers who have no systems of their own at home. I suspect that if I lived at or below the poverty line in the U.S. (which still means you own a stereo, VCR and TV I think), not being able to surf the Net at my leisure wouldn't be a major concern...especially when most of the things you do on the Net may still be accomplished in the Real World.
Online gaming for motivated, sportsmanlike players: www.steelmaelstrom.org.
Well, pardon me for asking but when exactly is the majority permitted to "rule"?
I'm against censorship, but I'm also of the mind that my tax dollars shouldn't allow Joe Public to view "hot naked coeds" at the local library. Exactly what is "wrong material" should be, IMO, left up to the local community: so if the residents of Liberal, Kansas think that abortion-related pages are bad and should be filtered out, so be it. If the community then suffers due to ignorance, that's their problem.
When does the majority get the right to steer the course of their environment? There are a lot of voices here on /. that talk about the idiots in the media (a small but vocal minority) who steer the course of many tech-related issues...where are those voices in this case?
Online gaming for motivated, sportsmanlike players: www.steelmaelstrom.org.
The X-Files conspiracy crowd will refuse to belive this, but there's a few simple reasons why such theories as the CIA planting bombs on planes and U.S. Government-sponsored DoS attacks are total bunk.
Government employees generally don't rank high on the trust or confidence scales. Sometimes, a few of the high-ranking ones get caught doing something illegal. But the vast majority of government employees, IMO, have two major concerns in their day-to-day work experience:
- "When do I get off of work?" and
- "How can I cover my own ass?"
Killing their own citizens or costing their country's corporations millions of dollars are not on the agenda. Sure, they may consider doing that to other countries, but nobody shits where they eat. That's Reason #1. You don't bomb airliners, because your best friend's favorite aunt may be onboard. You don't DoS E-Bay because your partner's spouse is bidding on that one item he/she really wants.I'm not even factoring in that much-rediculed characteristic, patriotism, which would keep a lot of folks from taking part in such plans.
Reason #2: It's damned hard to keep a secret. I cite the U.S. F-117, aka the "stealth fighter". America was developing an 'invisible plane', and everybody knew it. Even some model companies came out with "concept" versions of the fighter before the USAF ever went public...and those models had remarkable similarities to the real deal. How so? Contractors and military members saying a few things too much, is my guess. It's hard to totally keep a secret if it's a big one; killing your fellow citizens or damaging large corporations is such a secret.
The DoS attacks are the work of a small group of vandals, not the "Shadow Government". Turn off the TV and turn on your brain. Think.
Online gaming for motivated, sportsmanlike players: www.steelmaelstrom.org.
Online gaming for motivated, sportsmanlike players: www.steelmaelstrom.org.
Yes, and many of them write long-winded, alarmist articles.
Online gaming for motivated, sportsmanlike players: www.steelmaelstrom.org.
Online gaming for motivated, sportsmanlike players: www.steelmaelstrom.org.
I suspect that a "true" conservative or liberal can't be elected to a high office these days. Instead, the public is served by individuals who have allowed their personal beliefs to be comprimised at some point so as to be more attractive to the voters, campaign donors, or both.
Regarding censorship: please remember that (at least in the U.S.) every major party has supported censorship of one kind or another. This isn't a "Republican vs. Democrat" or "Conservative vs. Liberal" thing. Yes, Virginia...Pat Robertson and Tipper Gore are in the same boat -- albeit different ends.
Online gaming for motivated, sportsmanlike players: www.steelmaelstrom.org.
When do we seend LM the bill?
Online gaming for motivated, sportsmanlike players: www.steelmaelstrom.org.
Now if I were George Lucas, I'd:
You lucky devil...now you'll be able to see Jar-Jar Binks in full digital obnoxiousness!
Oh, don't worry Colonel...they still play videos on MTV. The trouble is, they're busy running crawlers at the bottom and overdubbing some vapid ragamuffin's music request so you can neither hear the music nor pay attention to the video. Ah, I long for the days where the constant stream of videos were only interrupted by a single SnickersTM ad. At least VH1 is starting to show Metallica...
Only if there's a "Moderate" icon available on their desktop...
..that I shouldn't watch the upcoming VH-1 special on Phreaks? I hear it's going to feature an interview with the illustrious Toucan Sam...
Crayola. Slinky. Frisbee.
Simple. Popular. Out of beta.